弗里德曼的观点是不干涉主义或自由放任的商业愿景。在他看来，企业应该以赚钱为目标，同时遵守“社会的基本规则”，如纳税(Friedman 1970:1)。它假设消费者是主权的，能够显著影响企业决策。这种商业组织的观点低估了消费者市场失灵的重要性。人们认为消费者可以将他们的业务转移到别处，正如Friedman认为消费者可以将他们的业务转移到其他生产者(Friedman 1970)。然而，如果消费者不能为另一个竞争对手的产品付费，这是不可能的。就像下面讨论的那样，如果消费者无法为沃尔沃(Volvo)等汽车制造商提供的安全功能付费，那么情况就是如此。综上所述，如果消费者不愿为其买单，那么社会责任政策就会被视为不现实。弗里德曼认为，促进平等等具有社会责任感的商业政策可能会损害公司业绩。例如，Ben和Jerry采用了一种薪酬方案，薪酬最高的员工只能挣到“薪酬最低的公司员工收入的5倍”(Barney和Hesterly 2010:7)。这种支付方案使得很难招募高级管理人才，以确保公司的成长和持续盈利.
Friedman’s view is a non-interventionist or laissez-faire vision of commerce. In his view business should aim to earn money while complying with “the basic rules of the society” such as paying taxes (Friedman 1970:1). It assumes that consumers are sovereign and are able to significantly influence corporate decision-making. This view of commercial organisations underplays the significance of consumer market failure. It is assumed that consumers can take their business elsewhere as Friedman believed that consumers can transfer their business to other producers (Friedman 1970). However, this is not possible if the consumer is unable to pay for another competitor firm’s products. This is the case if a consumer were unable to pay for the safety features, offered by a car manufacturer such as Volvo, as discussed below. To summarise, socially responsible polices, can be seen as unrealistic if consumers are unwilling to pay for them.Friedman argued that socially responsible business policies, such as promoting equality, can harm company performance. For example, Ben and Jerry’s adopted a payment scheme where the highest paid employee could only earn “no more than five times the income of the lowest paid firm employee” (Barney and Hesterly 2010:7). This payment scheme made it difficult to recruit senior managerial talent to make sure that the company grew and remained profitable